Judge: driver's lapse of concentration that killed veteran cyclist 'could have happened to anyone'

So every level of the justice system is anti cyclist then.

I think the implication of this is that normal people cannot be considered safe enough to drive a car. So logically this suggests that we should make the driving licence tough enough to reflect the skills needed to drive a car without running the risk of killing someone. ...or is the implication that its quite normal and acceptable to drive for longer than 9 seconds without being able to see the road? Then the highway code needs considerably longer stopping distances factored in, and probably the roads need much slower speed limits to reflect the lack of attention that courts consider to be acceptable.

"This "I didn't see them" stuff is such guff."

It's beyond comprehension that the phrase often gets used as some sort of defence. The fact that you didn't see someone or something that you drove into is the bloody problem.

"I have a strong suspicion that many of these "I was distracted / blinded by the sun" excuses..."

I don't have the exact ones to hand, but I noticed one or two fishy-looking defences recently that suggested that "sun in my eyes" is now seen as a relatively safe defence by motoring lawyers.

"Why you would want to cycle on it, less so organise a TT on it, is beyond me."

There are TTs regularly held on the A3 (which is also basically a motorway) and I've driven past them a lot. They're held when the road is relatively quiet (ie after evening rush hour) and are heavily signposted. Under those premises, it seems pretty safe overall. I'd certainly never cycle on that road as a single cyclist and/or when busy, though: it's a lethal environment.

A terrible tragedy.

The A19 is essentially a two-lane motorway and no place for anyone to be riding a bike, no matter how experienced. I use the road regularly and the average speed on this stretch is probably over 70mph. Why you would want to cycle on it, less so organise a TT on it, is beyond me.

This "I didn't see them" stuff is such guff. This particular driver had *9* seconds to see the cyclist - no way can a lapse of concentration explain that.

I have a strong suspicion that many of these "I was distracted / blinded by the sun" excuses from drivers who mow down cyclists in front of them actually are cases where the driver deliberately decided to pass the rider without moving out (i.e. close pass) and misjudged it.

It could have happened to anyone.

Any one of us - no matter what we do - could be hit from behind by someone who's driving negligently.

That is the correct end of the stick I've got there, isn't it? *sigh*

The judge has form, if you'll pardon the phrase, for controversial decisions and thought-provoking phrasing of his judicial opinion. Precisely what thoughts they might provoke is something else entirely.

Judge Peter Bowers. Google is not your friend.

I'm lost for words, how sad.

Do what I do and turn it into "pedestrian killed by driver after lapse of concentration". Do you think the judge would be saying it could've happened to anyone? No way.

Even better - turn it into "pedestrian killed by cyclist after lapse of concentration" and I guarantee you the nation would be up in arms.

Good link Simon F. I can only guess that this judge was driving the 4x4/people carrier thing. He should be forced to watch the clip...

This whole story is difficult to digest and a very sad state of affairs for our judicial system. A dreadful loss for the friends and family of Leonard Grayson, made even worse by the farcical response of the courts.

Until these senile old bast**ds are pensioned off, the sooner we will see some positive improvement to road safety for everyone not just those using a car, and not just cyclists.

"There are always two tragedies in cases like this. By far the greatest is the victim of this." -- Judge Peter Bowers.

Say what you like about the judge, but it is obvious that he has had long, effective legal training, and moreoever is obviously a man of profound philosphical and spiritual insight.

9 second views of cyclists from a car ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8pX52v_yNA&feature=youtu.be&t=40s

Does he really claim to be looking at the other carriageway for that long?

Apparently your MP for the worth that is. By all accounts retribution is frowned upon unless you kill them with your car then it is by the grace of God.

Disclaimer: there are other, imaginary, celestial deities that you can worship if you are so inclined.

So, how and who do you complain to about unduly lacx sentences?

I wonder if Mr. West would use such terms had it been a member of his family? Let’s hope, for his sake, it never happens to him. Disgraceful

"then it may have been dangerous to brake quickly to 20mph"

in a car with abs and airbags? - one thing that drivers could learn is that the worst option is to hit the cyclist or pedestrian in these circumstances - hitting other vehicles will be probably be an accident all the vehicle occupants will walk away from

? did the judge actually repeat the words of the defence barrister ? or is the headline wrong ?

anyhow very sad sounds like was a great guy and drivers need to learn that life deserves respect - I'm convinced most driver don't believe cyclists are allowed on dual carriageways and absolutely don't know how to deal with them safely
at least the dangerous driving charge stuck and the driver was disqualified probably not a sufficient deterrent to say to others what the impact of bad driving can be - maybe a quality tv documentary (if that is possible) with a few families of bereaved and a few drivers talking about the impact on their lives is needed - need a cultural change that says driving and not respecting other road users is a blight

Let's say I poison a few people because I have a momentary lapse of concentration in the kitchen and pregnant lady and old fella die. Criminal charge and a fairly tough sentence will follow, you can be sure of that.

As well as working ourselves into a frenzy over the badly judged driving and 'shit happens' judge comments, lets take a minute to admire Grayson's stamina. 83 miles @20mph? Wowzers, I want to do that when I'm 75.

Also at least the driver did everything right after the accident - admitted the charge, accepted it was worthy of prison, etc. it sounds like he'd lined up an overtake without quite having enough room, and the worst happened. If it was a busy road (A19? sounds like it) then it may have been dangerous to brake quickly to 20mph, and the lanes might be big enough to think you can go3 abreast. I'm just guessing.

I hate riding on fast A roads in any case.

If you kill using a vehicle, you should receive a mandatory life-time ban from driving again. It doesn't matter why or what the details of the case were.

Driving is a privilege, extend by license. If you kill someone while licensed, you should never be able to have the privilege again. Because you've proven yourself unworthy of it, and a danger to others.

It might concentrate a few minds, too....

Very poor comments from the Judge.

According to the police Barraclough would have been able to see the cyclist for 'at least' 9 seconds before the collision. And he admitted he had seen the signs indicating the event was taking place.

So hardly a 'momentary lapse' of concentration.

The sentence seems a bit light, a suspended prison sentence and a driving ban for just 18 months. Not enough.

Another example of the courts favouring motorists, even when the evidence is clear.